CC SR 20200218 04 - All Way Stop at Crestridge & Middlecrest
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/18/2020
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to direct Staff to install an all-way stop at the
intersection of Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Direct Staff to proceed with the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection
of Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time
Amount Budgeted: $433,300
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 215-400-8828-8802 (Proposition C – Traffic Other Improvements)
ORIGINATED BY: Nasser Razepoor, PE, Associate Civil Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Elias Sassoon, PE, Director of Public Works
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Interim City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Location and Triangle Sight Distance map (page A-1)
B. Warrant Analysis (page B-1)
C. TSC Minutes of April 22, 2019 (page C-1)
D. Memorandum dated August 29, 2019 (page D-1)
E. TSC Minutes of September 23, 2019 (page E-1)
F. Supplemental Warrant Analysis dated January 28, 2020 (page F-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In 2018, the City received a request to install stop signs at the intersection of Crestridge
Road and Middlecrest Road (Attachment A) from a Ridgecrest resident concerned with
sight visibility at this intersection. As a result, Staff asked the City’s consulting traffic
engineer (Willdan) to perform a stop sign warrant analysis for this intersection.
1
Warrant Analysis
The warrant analysis (Attachment B) was completed on December 20, 2018, and
recommended the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection. The warrant
analysis stated that the intersection has large elevation changes on both the south
approach of Crestridge Road and the north approach of Middlecrest Road. The change
in elevation makes it especially difficult for drivers to see oncoming traffic from the south
approach of Crestridge Road, which is downhill. Furthermore, the adequate sight
distance is not provided due to the roadway’s horizontal curvature, which prevents
drivers from properly viewing oncoming vehicular traffic. The adequate sight distance for
drivers turning left from the west approach of Crestridge Road to Middlecrest Road
should be 250 feet, whereas the available sight distance is only 125 feet. Also, the
adequate sight distance for drivers along the south leg of Crestridge Road turning left
onto the Crestridge Road west approach should be 305 feet, whereas the available
sight distance is currently only 115 feet. These inadequate sight distances are due to
the line-of-sight being obstructed by a house and uphill sloping terrain.
Traffic Safety Committee Meeting of April 22, 2019
The existing condition was presented to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) on April 22,
2019, with the recommendation based upon the warrant analysis. At the meeting, a
large majority of Ridgecrest residents expressed their opposition to installing an all-way
stop. They indicated that there had not been any accidents at this intersection in the last
few decades, so there was no need to install stop signs. Accident data information
contained in the “All-Way Stop Warrant Analysis” (Attachment B) confirm ed there have
not been any accidents in the past several years. Residents suggested trimming the
adjacent hedges to resolve the sight distance issue. The TSC, based on public input,
moved to not recommend the installation of the all-way stop, but to instead recommend
other alternative measures, such as installing yield signs and trimming hedges
(Attachment C).
Subsequently, Staff asked the City’s consulting traffic engineer to evaluate the
possibility of installing yield signs or trimming hedges in lieu of installing stop signs to
mitigate the issue. The traffic engineer’s memorandum of August 29, 2019 (Attachment
D) indicated that trimming the hedges alone would not resolve the sight visibility issue.
The memo further indicated that the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUCTD) does not allow for the installation of yield signs on all of the
approaches to an intersection; therefore, this approach would not be appropriate. The
memo reiterated the findings of the initial report, recommending the installation of an all-
way stop as well as removing/trimming hedges.
Traffic Safety Committee Meeting of September 23, 2019
The City’s consulting traffic engineer’s recommendations were presented to the TSC on
September 23, 2019. During this meeting, several Ridgecrest residents again spoke
against the installation of the stop signs on the same grounds raised previously. The
2
TSC stood by its original motion of April 22, 2019, and recommended trimming the
hedges at 28602 Crestridge Road that run west along Crestridge Road (Attachment E).
The hedges in the public right-of-way adjacent to 28602 Crestridge Road were trimmed
by the City in November 2019, but the sight visibility issue remained due to the location
of the existing house along the horizontal curvature and the existing vertical grades.
Number of Stop Signs Analysis
At the request of Staff, Willdan prepared a report analyzing a reduction in the number of
proposed stop signs at the intersection as a possible alternative (Attachment F). This
report, dated January 28, 2020, studied four alternatives:
Alternative 1 Installing a stop sign on Crestridge Road west approach
Alternative 2 Installing a stop sign on Middlecrest Road
Alternative 3 Installing stop signs on the Middlecrest Road and Crestridge Road
south approach
Alternative 4 Installing an all-way stop at the intersection
Based on review of field conditions, data previously collected, and engineering
judgement, the report recommends Alternative 4, installing an all-way stop at the
intersection. This alternative is the only option that eliminates all conflicting movements
and assigns right-of-way without creating confusion. Consequently, Staff believes that
Alternative 4 is the safest and best solution. The other alternatives do not eliminate line-
of-sight conflicts and/or conflicting movements, and would cause confusion for
motorists.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, Staff recommends installing an all-way stop at the intersection of
Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Take no action.
2. Discuss other options/solutions that may be appropriate.
3
A-1
December 20, 2018
Ms. Nadia Carrasco
Assistant Engineer
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Subject: All-Way Stop Warrant Analysis for the Intersection of Crestridge Road
and Middlecrest Road
Background
Willdan Engineering is pleased to prepare an All-Way Stop Warrant for the intersection
of Middlecrest Road and Crestridge Road per the City of Rancho Palos Verdes All-Way
Stop Warrant Guidelines. We understand City staff received residents request to review
the intersection and provide recommendation to improve it. The uncontrolled intersection
of Middlecrest Road and Crestridge Road is the only ingress/egress for the residential
neighborhood East of the intersection. The following report identifies if there is a
justification for the All-Way Stop for the intersection.
Existing Conditions
Middlecrest Road & Crestridge
Road is a “T” intersection East of
Crenshaw Boulevard. The
intersection is the only access to
the residential properties east of
the intersection.
Crestridge Road is a 66-foot
wide roadway with two lanes in
each direction separated by
raised median and the West
approach of the “T” intersection.
Crestridge Road also makes up
the South approach as a 32-foot
wide, two lane unstriped
roadway. The South approach
has a large decline of 7% that
curves South.
Middlecrest Road is the Northeastern approach and intersects with Crestridge Road.
Middlecrest Road is a 32-foot wide, unstriped, 2 lane roadway. Middlecrest Road has an
N
B-1
incline of 6% and curves East. Middlecrest Road & Crestridge Road lead to residential
neighborhoods, with a prima facia speed limit of 25 miles per hour . There is “on street
parking” allowed on Middlecrest Road and Crestridge Road.
Data Collection
Traffic Collision History
Reported collision data was obtained from the Lomita Sheriff’s Department for the most
recent 12-month period between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. There were
no collisions within the study intersection reported within the time period.
Traffic Volume
24-hour approach counts were collected on Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road on
Wednesday, October 10, 2018 to determine the traffic and pedestrian volume for the
intersection. Exhibit A summarizes the intersection’s traffic volume.
Crestridge Road Approach Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
South Approach 490 33 (11:00) 48 (6:00)
West Approach 499 46 (11:00) 44 (2:00)
Middlecrest Road Approach Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
North Approach 197 17 (10:00) 19 (6:00)
The pedestrian crossing data counted only one pedestrian crossing from the North
approach. The count was taken from 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM and 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM on
October 10, 2018.
Crestridge Road/
Middlecrest Road
Crosswalk
Pedestrians
Crossing
South Approach 0
West Approach 0
North Approach 1
B-2
Radar Speed
Radar speed surveys were collected at Crestridge Road and at Middlecrest Road on
October 10, 2018. The 85th percentile speeds are listed in the table below. The radar
speed survey sheets can be found in Exhibit B.
Roadway Segment 85th Percentile
Speed
Crestridge Road North of intersection 26.5 mph
Middlecrest Road South of intersection 28.7 mph
Analysis
Rancho Palos Verdes has its own warrant for All-Way Stops and provides guidelines for
evaluating the need for instituting the warrant on local intersections. Subsequent analysis
was used for the intersection of Ridgecrest Road and Crestridge Road and Exhibit C
summarizes the findings.
a.Sight Distance – Available sight distance is less than that dictated by the
prevailing traffic speed (sight distance triangle) for pedestrians and vehicles
crossing the higher volumes street.
b.Collisions – Five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible to correction
by the installation of an all-way stop have occurred within a twelve-month
period. Types of accidents susceptible to correction include broadside and left -
turn collisions.
c.Volume – Total vehicular volume entering the local intersection from all
approaches must average 180 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average
day. And the vehicular volume entering the intersection from the minor street,
for the same 8 hours, must average at least 72 vehicles per hour.
d.Miscellaneous – Any unusual physical or geometric conditions that cannot be
effectively addressed by less restrictive methods.
Sight Distance
The adequate sight distance for drivers turning right from the West approach of Crestridge
Road to the South approach of Crestridge Road is 305 feet per the 85th percentile speed
of 25 mph and a downhill grade of 7.0%. The Sight Distance must be less than what is
dictated by the prevailing traffic speed for vehicles crossing the higher volume street for
the warrant to be met. The intersection has a large elevation change on the south
approach of Crestridge Road and the north approach of Middlecrest Road. The change
B-3
in elevation makes it especially hard for drivers to see the oncoming traffic from the south
approach of Crestridge Road, which is downhill. The adequate sight distance is not met
by the roadways horizontal curvature which prevent the driver from properly viewing the
oncoming traffic as shown in Exhibit D. The adequate sight distance for drivers turning
left from the west approach of Crestridge Road to Middlecrest Road is 250 feet. This sight
distance is also not met as the line of sight is obstructed by a house compounded by the
uphill slope terrain as shown in Exhibit D. The warrant is met due to the lack of sight
distance as summarized in the All-Way Stop Warrant worksheet in Exhibit C.
Collisions
Analysis of the collision guideline was made by reviewing the collisions at the intersection
within a 12-month period. Five (5) or more collisions would justify the Traffic Collision
Warrant. From the reported collision data, the intersection experienced 0 collisions
throughout 2017. Therefore, the collision warrant is not met as summarized in the All-
Way Stop Warrant Worksheet, Exhibit C.
Volume
The average hourly vehicular volume from all approaches was under the required 180
vehicles per hour for the highest 8 hours studied. The vehicular volume entering the
intersection from the minor street was lower than the required 72 vehicles per hour for 8
hours studied as well, which can be viewed in the table below. The traffic volume do not
meet the warrant as Summarized in the All-Way Stop Warrant worksheet in Exhibit C.
Eight Highest Hours/Volumes
Ave
Vol. Time: Ave Vol.
Required
11-
12
PM
12-
1
PM
1-2
PM
2-3
PM
3-4
PM
4-5
PM
5-6
PM
6-7
PM
Total Volume
(From All
Approaches):
180 95 78 85 95 87 74 77 98 86
Minor Volume
(Crestridge Rd -
South approach) :
72 49 48 53 51 49 43 52 67 52
B-4
Miscellaneous
The miscellaneous warrant requires engineering judgement to determine if there are other
factors such as curvature, or a large percentage of heavy vehicles that would warrant an
All-Way Stop. The horizontal and vertical curve that hinder the sight distance of the
intersection are were previously discussed under the sight distance analysis. A field
observation then determined that there were no other miscellaneous factors that would
warrant an All-Way Stop. The miscellaneous guideline requirement was not satisfied.
Recommendation
The intersection of Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road satisfies the Sight Distance
warrant for an All-Way Stop. The sight distance for the intersection does not meet the
minimum 305 feet and 250 feet subsequently for the left and right turn movements, and
in turn, justifies the Sight Distance Warrant. It is recommended that an All-Way Stop be
installed for Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road.
We appreciate this opportunity to serve the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the
assistance and cooperation afforded to us during the course of this study. Should you
have any questions, please contact me at (562) 368-4848.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLDAN ENGINEERING
Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE, PTOE
Traffic Engineer
Enclosures:
Exhibit A – Volume Counts
Exhibit B – Radar Speed Surveys
Exhibit C – All-Way Stop Warrant Worksheet
Exhibit D – Intersection Sight Distance Diagram
B-5
Page 1
Crestridge Rd
N/O Crestridge Rd-Middlecrest Rd
CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
www.ctcounters.com
Start 10-Oct-18 South Hour Totals
Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon
12:00 2 3
12:15 1 8
12:30 0 14
12:45 0 9 3 34
01:00 0 10
01:15 1 7
01:30 0 8
01:45 0 13 1 38
02:00 1 6
02:15 0 14
02:30 0 4
02:45 0 11 1 35
03:00 0 11
03:15 0 8
03:30 2 12
03:45 0 8 2 39
04:00 0 6
04:15 0 11
04:30 0 9
04:45 1 6 1 32
05:00 0 7
05:15 0 6
05:30 0 10
05:45 0 12 0 35
06:00 1 10
06:15 2 15
06:30 3 11
06:45 3 12 9 48
07:00 4 9
07:15 1 5
07:30 7 10
07:45 6 9 18 33
08:00 7 3
08:15 7 6
08:30 9 6
08:45 6 11 29 26
09:00 8 6
09:15 4 1
09:30 6 3
09:45 4 6 22 16
10:00 7 2
10:15 8 1
10:30 5 2
10:45 7 0 27 5
11:00 8 2
11:15 12 0
11:30 8 1
11:45 5 0 33 3
Total 146 344
Percent 29.8%70.2%
Grand Total 146 344
Percent 29.8%70.2%
ADT ADT 490 AADT 490
B-6
Page 1
Crestridge Rd
W/O Crestridge Rd
CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
www.ctcounters.com
Start 10-Oct-18 East Hour Totals
Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon
12:00 2 7
12:15 2 10
12:30 1 8
12:45 0 5 5 30
01:00 0 9
01:15 1 5
01:30 0 5
01:45 0 13 1 32
02:00 0 7
02:15 0 18
02:30 0 8
02:45 0 11 0 44
03:00 0 8
03:15 0 10
03:30 1 9
03:45 3 11 4 38
04:00 0 4
04:15 1 7
04:30 0 12
04:45 1 8 2 31
05:00 0 7
05:15 1 5
05:30 1 7
05:45 1 6 3 25
06:00 3 4
06:15 2 11
06:30 7 7
06:45 6 9 18 31
07:00 5 9
07:15 6 10
07:30 10 6
07:45 7 3 28 28
08:00 10 5
08:15 5 4
08:30 17 1
08:45 14 4 46 14
09:00 8 2
09:15 7 0
09:30 10 1
09:45 5 3 30 6
10:00 7 2
10:15 7 0
10:30 11 1
10:45 6 1 31 4
11:00 9 0
11:15 11 1
11:30 15 1
11:45 11 0 46 2
Total 214 285
Percent 42.9%57.1%
Grand Total 214 285
Percent 42.9%57.1%
ADT ADT 499 AADT 499
B-7
Page 1
Middlecrest Rd
E/O Crestridge Rd
CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
www.ctcounters.com
Start 10-Oct-18 West Hour Totals
Time Wed Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon
12:00 0 3
12:15 0 2
12:30 1 1
12:45 0 8 1 14
01:00 0 3
01:15 0 6
01:30 0 3
01:45 0 3 0 15
02:00 0 4
02:15 0 2
02:30 0 5
02:45 0 5 0 16
03:00 0 2
03:15 0 1
03:30 0 6
03:45 1 1 1 10
04:00 0 1
04:15 0 3
04:30 0 3
04:45 1 4 1 11
05:00 0 2
05:15 1 3
05:30 1 5
05:45 0 7 2 17
06:00 0 6
06:15 3 6
06:30 1 3
06:45 2 4 6 19
07:00 1 1
07:15 4 1
07:30 2 3
07:45 1 2 8 7
08:00 1 1
08:15 2 4
08:30 9 2
08:45 3 3 15 10
09:00 2 0
09:15 2 0
09:30 2 0
09:45 4 0 10 0
10:00 3 0
10:15 3 0
10:30 9 0
10:45 2 0 17 0
11:00 4 0
11:15 6 0
11:30 5 0
11:45 1 1 16 1
Total 77 120
Percent 39.1%60.9%
Grand Total 77 120
Percent 39.1%60.9%
ADT ADT 197 AADT 197
B-8
File Name : Crestridge_Crestridge-Middlecrest_Pedestrians
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 10/10/2018
Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Pedestrians
Crestridge Rd
South Leg
Middlecrest Rd
West Leg North Leg
Crestridge Rd
East Leg
Start Time Peds Peds Peds Peds Int. Total
07:45 AM 0 0 1 0 1
Total 0 0 1 0 1
Grand Total 0 0 1 0 1
Apprch %0 0 100 0
Total %0 0 100 0
CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
www.ctcounters.com
B-9
File Name : Crestridge_Crestridge-Middlecrest_Pedestrians
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 10/10/2018
Page No : 2
Crestridge Rd
South Leg
Middlecrest Rd
West Leg North Leg
Crestridge Rd
East Leg
Start Time Peds App. Total Peds App. Total Peds App. Total Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:30 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
% App. Total 0 0 100 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .250
Crestridge Rd Crestridge Rd Middlecrest Rd Peds
0
InOut Total
0 0 0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Peds
1
Out TotalIn
0 1 1 Peds0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM
Pedestrians
Peak Hour Data
North
CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
www.ctcounters.com
B-10
File Name : Crestridge_Crestridge-Middlecrest_Pedestrians
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 10/10/2018
Page No : 3
Crestridge Rd
South Leg
Middlecrest Rd
West Leg North Leg
Crestridge Rd
East Leg
Start Time Peds App. Total Peds App. Total Peds App. Total Peds App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 04:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% App. Total 0 0 0 0
PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Crestridge Rd Crestridge Rd Middlecrest Rd Peds
0
InOut Total
0 0 0 Peds0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Peds
0
Out TotalIn
0 0 0 Peds0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 12:00 PM
Pedestrians
Peak Hour Data
North
CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS
www.ctcounters.com
B-11
E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y
CITY OF
DATE:10-10-18 DAY:WEDNESDAY TIME PERIOD :11:10AM TO 12:10PM
SPEED TOTAL
(MPH)TOTAL VEHICLES SURVEYED NB SB VEHICLES LIMITS (BTN):NORTH OF MIDDLECREST RD
65 0 0 0
64 0 0 0 OBSERVATION POINT:CRESTRIDGE/MIDDLECREST OBSERVER:CARLOS
63 0 0 0
62 0 0 0 WEATHER:PARTLY SUNNY
61 0 0 0 POSTED SPEED LIMIT:25 MPH
60 0 0 0 ROAD SURFACE:DRY
59 0 0 0 COMMENTS:
58 0 0 0 ROAD CONDITION:FAIR
57 0 0 0
56 0 0 0 DATA COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
55 0 0 0
54 0 0 0
53 0 0 0
52 0 0 0
51 0 0 0
50 0 0 0
49 0 0 0
48 0 0 0
47 0 0 0
46 0 0 0
45 0 0 0
44 0 0 0
43 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND+SOUTHBOUND
42 0 0 0
41 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 85TH %:26.3 26.8 26.5 M.P.H.
39 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 50TH %:22.2 22.8 22.4 M.P.H.
37 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 15TH %:18.0 18.8 18.4 M.P.H.
35 X 0 1 1
34 X 1 0 1 10 MPH PACE:17 - 26 18 - 27 18 - 27 M.P.H.
33 0 0 0
32 X 1 0 1 % IN PACE:88%93%89%
31 0 0 0
30 X X 1 1 2 % OVER PACE:12%7%10%
29 X 1 0 1
28 X 1 0 1 % UNDER PACE:0%0%1%
27 X 0 1 1 *
26 X X X X X X 2 4 6 *ARITHMETIC MEAN:22.19 22.79 22.44 M.P.H.
25 X X X X X 3 2 5 *
24 X X X 3 0 3 P SAMPLE VARIANCE:16.01 14.81 15.39
23 X X X X X X X 2 5 7 A
22 X X X X X X X X 5 3 8 C STANDARD DEVIATION:4.00 3.85 3.92 M.P.H.
21 X X X X X 3 2 5 E
20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 8 5 13 *VARIANCE OF THE MEAN:0.38 0.51 0.22
19 X X X X X X 4 2 6 *
18 X X X X X X X X X 6 3 9 *STD. ERROR OF THE MEAN:0.62 0.71 0.47 M.P.H.
17 X 1 0 1
16 0 0 0
15 0 0 0
42 29 71
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
LOCATION:CRESTRIDGE ROAD
B-12
E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y
CITY OF
DATE:10-10-18 DAY:WEDNESDAY TIME PERIOD :10:08AM TO 11:08AM
SPEED TOTAL
(MPH)TOTAL VEHICLES SURVEYED EB WB VEHICLES LIMITS (BTN):EAST OF CRESTRIDGE RD
65 0 0 0
64 0 0 0 OBSERVATION POINT:5450 MIDDLECREST RD OBSERVER:CARLOS
63 0 0 0
62 0 0 0 WEATHER:PARTLY SUNNY
61 0 0 0 POSTED SPEED LIMIT:25 MPH
60 0 0 0 ROAD SURFACE:DRY
59 0 0 0 COMMENTS:
58 0 0 0 ROAD CONDITION:FAIR
57 0 0 0
56 0 0 0 DATA COLLECTION METHOD:RADAR
55 0 0 0
54 0 0 0
53 0 0 0
52 0 0 0
51 0 0 0
50 0 0 0
49 0 0 0
48 0 0 0
47 0 0 0
46 0 0 0
45 0 0 0
44 0 0 0
43 0 0 0 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND EASTBOUND+WESTBOUND
42 0 0 0
41 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 85TH %:29.3 28.2 28.7 M.P.H.
39 0 0 0
38 X 1 0 1 50TH %:23.9 24.3 24.1 M.P.H.
37 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 15TH %:18.4 20.4 19.5 M.P.H.
35 0 0 0
34 0 0 0 10 MPH PACE:18 - 27 22 - 31 18 - 27 M.P.H.
33 0 0 0
32 0 0 0 % IN PACE:86%88%87%
31 X 0 1 1
30 0 0 0 % OVER PACE:7%0%6%
29 0 0 0
28 0 0 0 % UNDER PACE:7%12%6%
27 X X X X X X X X 3 5 8 *
26 X X X 1 2 3 *ARITHMETIC MEAN:23.86 24.29 24.10 M.P.H.
25 X X 1 1 2 *
24 X 0 1 1 P SAMPLE VARIANCE:27.67 14.35 19.69
23 X X X X X 2 3 5 A
22 X X X 1 2 3 C STANDARD DEVIATION:5.26 3.79 4.44 M.P.H.
21 X 1 0 1 E
20 X X 2 0 2 *VARIANCE OF THE MEAN:1.98 0.84 0.64
19 0 0 0 *
18 X X 1 1 2 *STD. ERROR OF THE MEAN:1.41 0.92 0.80 M.P.H.
17 X 1 0 1
16 0 0 0
15 X 0 1 1
14 17 31
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
LOCATION:MIDDLECREST ROAD
B-13
Exhibit C
INTERSECTION:
MAJOR STREET:29 mph
MINOR STREET:27 mph
YES NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
peak hour.
X
X
11-12 pm 12-1 pm 1-2 pm 2-3pm 3-4 pm 4-5 pm 5-6 pm
95 78 85 95 87 74 77 98
49 48 53 51 49 43 52 67
EIGHT HIGHEST HOURS/VOLUMES
6-7 pm
58/42
SATISFIED?
The volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal (no greater than a
1. Where a traffic signal is justified and the need for traffic control at the intersection is
REQUIRED CONDITION/WARRANT
urgent, all-way stop control can be used as an interim device while arrangements
installation of an all-way stop have occurred within a 12-month period. Types of
accidents susceptible to correction include broadside and left-turn collisions.
a. Total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average
at least 180 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and
b. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the minor street for the same
8 hours must average at least 72 vehicles per hour.
5. Volume Warrant - Arterial Streets (Not Applicable)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT
Crestridge Rd (E ) 10/26/2018
AVE. VOL.
the minimum vehicular warrant is 70% of the of the above requirements.
6. Any unusual physical or geometric conditions that cannot be effectively addressed
street.
Willdan
a. Total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must
average 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and
b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway
must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours with an average
delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the
4. Volume Warrant - Local Streets
Crestridge Rd at Middlecrest Rd
Crestridge Rd (S) / Middlecrest Rd (W)
60/40 split for a 4-legged intesection or a 70/30 split for a 3-legged intersection ). Split =
All-Way Stop Warrant Satisfied?
by less restrictive methods. If yes, attach description.
CONDITION
85th %tile Speed:
85th %tile Speed:
c. When the 85th percentile approach speed of the major street exceeds 40 mph,
DATE:
BY:
are being made to install a traffic signal.
2. Available sight distance is less than that dictated by the prevailing traffic speed
(sight distance triangle) for pedestrians and vehicles crossing the higher volume
3. Five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible to correction by the
86
52
TIME:
TOTAL VOLUME:
MINOR VOLUME:B-14
Exhibit C
INTERSECTION:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT
Crestridge Rd at Middlecrest Rd
NOTES:
1. Radar speed data was collected on Wednesday, October 10, 2018
2. Traffic count data was collected on Wednesday, October 10, 2018.
3. If the existing condition of no intersection traffic controls is maintained, the sight distance is inadequate and
all-way stop controls are needed.
4. No traffic collisions at the intersection were reported by Lomita Sheriff's Department in the
previous 12 months.
5. It is recommended that a one-way stop be installed on Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road.
B-15
EXHIBITPREPARED BY:CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDESRancho Palos VerdesLegendTriangle Sight DistanceCenterlineRight of WayIntersection Sight Distance DiagramIntersection Sight DistanceDiagramCrestridge RoadRi
d
g
e
c
r
e
s
t
R
o
a
dCrestridge Road1" TO 10'D2
5
0
'
305'15'1
8
'B-16
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
April 22, 2019
Page 1 of 4
MINUTES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Liu called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., at the City Hall Community Room,
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Chair Liu, Members Guerin, Hamill, Tye
ABSENT: Member Colville (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works; Natalie Chan, Senior
Engineer, Lauren Ramezani, Senior Administrative Analyst; Public Works
Department, Deputy Schloegl, LA County Sheriffs, Vanessa Munoz, Consulting
Traffic Engineer, Willdan Engineering
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Guerin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chair Liu mentioned making a minor change to the Agenda in order to address comments
regarding two items. Chair Liu moved to approve the Agenda with a revision to have the
Committee Oral Report placed before the Informational Items. Committee Member Tye
seconded the motion.
Motion Approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
CHAIR’S COMMUNICATION:
Chair Liu thanked Members Hamill, Colville and Guerin for volunteering at Whale of a
Day Event. He suggested updating some of the quiz questions and said Members Tye
and Guerin may have some useful replacement questions. Member Tye suggested
working with the Sheriffs to have traffic safety related pamphlets available. Deputy
Schloegl said he would check to see what is available. Chair Liu asked to have more
“Drive 25” signs at the booth and at the TSC meetings in case an attendee wants some.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
None.
C-1
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
April 22, 2019
Page 2 of 4
SHERIFF’S STATUS REPORT:
Deputy Schloegl distributed one item of Late Correspondence, a spreadsheet, and gave
a brief report on the number of traffic citations, collisions and arrests for the months of
January to March 2019. Member Tye asked if there were statistics on causes of traffic
collisions. The response was negative. The spike in the parking citations were due to
parking enforcement at Del Cerro Park area and the apartment buildings by Ocean Drive.
Director Sassoon has placed a message board by the Del Cerro area to remind drivers
of the parking restrictions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR NON-AGENDA ITEM):
Larry Maizlish, RPV Resident, comment was on Informational Item #1, which was
deferred until when the Item came up. Chair Liu and other members agreed to extend
the speaker time from 2 minutes to 3 minutes since there were not too many speakers
present.
NEW BUSINESS
1.All-Way Stop Warrant at Crestridge Rd & Middlecrest Rd
Recommendations: Staff recommends the installation of an all-way stop at this
location.
Ms. Munoz from W illdan Engineering presented the item. She explained the State of
California Sight Guidelines and the data collected at the area. She stated that there was
no collision history for that area. Based on her professional experience she
recommended installing a “Stop” sign.
Mr. John Olen, RPV Resident, suggested placing a “Yield” sign. He said the area has
safe drivers. He did not want the intersection to turn into a ticket trap.
Mr. James Colton, RPV Resident, was in favor of a “Stop” sign since he had safety
concern during nighttime or during adverse weather, especially since there are no
sidewalks.
Mr. John Smythe, RPV Resident, was not in favor of a “Stop” sig n. He stated that there
were never any collisions in that intersection. He thought the “Stop” sign could lead into
collisions or a citation trap.
Mr. James Jongkind, RPV Resident, said the main issue of the neighborhood is the lack
of sidewalks, which make it a concern for walkers in the sharp turn. He said that he works
for an auto manufacturer and since there has been no crashes, no “Stop” sign was
needed.
Mr. Gene Steiger, RPV Resident, was in favor of a “Yield” sign rather than a “Stop” sign.
He saw a need for a 25 mph sign on his street for downhill coming drivers, and a 35 mph
sign on Middlecrest to slow drivers around the blind curve.
C-2
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
April 22, 2019
Page 3 of 4
Committee Discussion and Staff Questions
The Committee and staff began a discussion over the data provided . Chair Liu asked
Director Sassoon questions and further discussion ensued. Clarifications were made on
what a warrant means, the difference between a traffic light warrant and a stop sign
warrant, and staff’s position when a warrant is “met”. It was explained that if a warrant is
met, that creates a liability for the City, if not acted upon it. However, the ultimate decision
is with the City Council. Further public input was solicited. Further discussion included
the right of way rules, other options besides a yield sign, and taking no action. Two
motions were made for consideration.
Chair Liu made a motion for the installation of a 3 -way stop sign at the intersection of
Crestridge and Middlecrest. There was no second on that motion.
Chair Liu made an alternative motion. The motion was to not recommend the installation
of a 3-way stop sign at the intersection of Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road, but ask
staff to investigate other alternative measures such as signage or hedge or obstruction
reduction to improve driver behavior. Member Tye seconded the motion.
Motion Approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
COMMITTEE MEMBER ORAL REPORTS
The item was moved ahead of Informational Items. Chair Liu had comments on two items.
Item 1 was the placement of a security camera at the entrance of Ridgecrest community
at the intersection discussed on the previous item, and the City’s policy in that regards.
According to Mr. Colton, the installation of the “Stop” sign would help a security camera
capture license plate information more accurately. Director Sassoon said that Analyst
Jackie Ruiz has been in contact with Mr. Colton. However, he will follow up on the item.
Item 2 was a complaint about speeding going downhill on Crenshaw away from Crest
Road and Crestridge. A right turn on red could be dangerous with speeding incoming
cars. Suggestion of a warning sign or a “No Turn on Red” was made.
Finally, Chair Liu reported that Member Hamill surveyed attendees at the Whale of a Day
event what were their issues or concerns were about traffic. The answers were typically
about speeding on the hill, speeding on PVDS/PVDW , and citations given at the median
of PVDS and Seahill. Chair added that this was discussed at a prior TSC meeting and
was presented to the City Council. A Late Correspondence, a picture of that intersection,
was distributed. Discussion ensued and Director Sassoon clarified that two cars cannot
be at that median at the same time.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
1.Signal Light Design at Hawthorne Blvd & Via Rivera; alternative measures in
lieu of a traffic signal light
C-3
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
April 22, 2019
Page 4 of 4
2.PVDE Road Widening Improvements from Bronco Drive to Headland Drive
3.PVDW from Marguerite to Hawthorne Speed Study
4.Berry Hill Pedestrian Crossing at PVDW
5.Stop sign at Crest and Whitley Collins
6.Design and Signage for Loading Zone on Ocean Crest Drive
7.Pedestrian Crossing Concern at Hawthorne Blvd. and Blackhorse Road
8.Drainage issue at 1853 Trudie Drive
9.Botts dots along Miraleste Drive by 3&4 Nancy Drive
10. All-Way Stop Warrant at Summerland street and Goodhope Avenue
11. PVDS Intersection Improvements
12. Traffic Concern on Trudie Drive from Homeworth Drive to Highmore Avenue
and Trudie at Western
13. PVDS and Forrestal Dr Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis to be performed
during school and AYSO sessions
14. Peninsula-Wide Safe Routes to School Plan
15. U-Turn Movement at Hawthorne Blvd & Highridge/Grayslake
16. Public Works Report – Public Works Tentative Agenda
17. Project Summary Sheet – Engineering
Larry Maizlish, RPV Resident, spoke on Item 1. He said the majority of the area residents
are in favor of the signal light and only a minority group do not want any change. Further
discussion ensued.
The Committee and Director Sassoon discussed in detail each Informational Item. Public
Works Director Sassoon provided the Committee with a status of each project.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
A. Signal Light Design at Hawthorne Blvd & Via Rivera; alternative
measures in lieu of a traffic signal light
B. PVDE Road Widening Improvements from Bronco Drive to Headland
Drive
Director Sassoon said that Item B would be presented at the next TSC committee due to
the length of the presentation.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Liu inquired if there was a reason that the next meeting was in three months
rather than in two month. Discussion ensued and it was agreed to have a special
meeting in June to specifically discuss Item B, the PDVE Road Widening project.
Member Tye moved to adjourn the meeting to a Special Meeting on June 24, 2019 and
Member Guerin seconded it. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Motion Approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
C-4
Memorandum
TO: Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works
FROM: Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE, PTOE - Traffic Engineer
DATE: August 29, 2019
SUBJECT: All Way Stop Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road
Willdan Engineering prepared an All-Way Stop Warrant Analysis on December 20, 2018 for the
intersection of Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road, per the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Stop
Warrant Guidelines and recommended the installation of an All-Way Stop at the subject location.
The recommendation was presented to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) at the April 22, 2019
meeting. We had residents in attendance with some in favor installation of the All-Way Stop and
others against it. The TSC Committee requested staff look into other possible traffic control
devices such as a Yield sign as an alternative to the All-Way stop.
The California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Section 3B.09.03 – Yield
Sign Applications states; “Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, Yield signs shall
not be placed on all of the approaches to an intersection. The All-Way stop recommendation
was made due to sight distance restrictions. The project location requires three signs, one per
approach to provide right of way control at the T intersection, this would mean all approaches
would require a Yield sign. Since the CA MUTCD does not allow Yield signs on all approaches,
the Yield sign installation is not an option and the recommendation for the All-Way stop sign is
recommended. We also suggest reducing the sight distance restriction by removing or trimming
the shrubs at 28602 Crestridge Road in addition to the All-Way Stop signs to improve sight
distance.
D-1
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
September 23, 2019
Page 1 of 6
MINUTES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2019
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Liu called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m., at the City Hall Community Room,
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Members Guerin, Hamill, Tye and Chair Liu
ABSENT: Member Colville (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works; Nasser Razepoor,
Associate Engineer, Lauren Ramezani, Senior Administrative Analyst and Acting
Recording Secretary; Public Works Department
FLAG SALUTE:
Member Guerin led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Member Guerin commented that there was a minor correction needed on page 2 of the
Agenda, Informational Item, I.2. It should read: “I.2. Update Re: Via Rivera/ Hawthorne
Boulevard” instead of: “I.2. Update Re: Via Rivera/ Crenshaw Boulevard”. Member
Guerin moved to approve the agenda as corrected, and Member Tye seconded the
motion.
Motion Approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
CHAIR’S COMMUNICATION:
Chair Liu thanked everyone in the audience for attending and restated that public
participation was very important.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Member Guerin moved to approve the minutes of July 22, 2019 and Member Tye
seconded it. Member Hamill was absent from that meeting and abstained .
Motion Approved: Ayes 3, Nays 0, Absent 1, Abstain 1
E-1
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
September 23, 2019
Page 2 of 6
SHERIFF’S STATUS REPORT:
There was no report. Deputy Schloegl could not attend the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR NON-AGENDA ITEM):
There were two requests to speak.
Mr. Louis Smolensky- representing the Rancho Crest HOA spoke and requested 4 items:
1) a red stripe be painted on the north east corner of Valley View Rd. and Crenshaw Blvd.
2) a stop sign be erected on corner of San Clemente Pl. which is the street that enters
Crenshaw Blvd. from the west right across from Valley View Rd. 3) pedestrian crosswalk
be painted across Crenshaw Blvd. at the south of the intersection of Valley View Rd and
Crenshaw with accompanying either stop signs or blinking pedestrian signs on Crenshaw
Blvd. in both directions. 4) blinking red lights be added to the 4 stop signs on Crest Rd.
and Crenshaw Blvd.
Ms. Georgette Gonsalves- representing Inland View Terrace HOA thanked the
Committee and staff for listening to their safety and parking concerns and taking action
to solve the problem. She also thanked the volunteers from the Sheriff’s off ice for their
presence and enforcements.
NEW BUSINESS
1.Installation of All-Way Stop Signs at the Intersection of Crestridge Road and
Middlecrest Road- Review consultant report and recommendation, and discuss.
Action Taken:
Director Sassoon commented that Consulting Engineer Vanessa Muniz could not
attend due to illness. He introduced Nasser Razepoor. He replaces Natalie Chan,
who is no longer with the City. Director Sassoon then proceeded to present the item.
He reminded the Committee that this item was presented to the TSC on April 22,
2019, and that there were several speakers who spoke on the item. He reiterated that
staff’s recommendation supports the findings of the warrant for the installation of all-
way stop signs.
Dorothia Liebich – She was against over regulation and said there were no accidents.
She added that they had no HOA, so she did not know who wanted to install security
cameras.
Shawn Gillis- He was against the project and cited no safety issues.
James Jongkind- He was in favor of taking incremental steps first. He suggested
first trimming the hedge and if the line-of-sight issue continued to exist, then see if
stop signs were needed.
John Smythe- He was against the project. He thought cutting the hedge would
improve visibility. He also questioned what precipitated this project/issue.
E-2
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
September 23, 2019
Page 3 of 6
Discussion ensued. Chair Liu commented that at the previous TSC meeting a motion
was made to not install the stop signs. He then inquired if any members wanted to
revisit the motion. There was none.
Member Tye moved to trim the hedges at 28602 Crestridge Road that runs west to
east along Crestridge Road. Member Guerin seconded the motion.
Motion approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
2.Installation of a No-Right-on-Red Sign at the Intersection of Crestridge Road
and Crenshaw Boulevard - Review consultant report and recommendation, and
discuss.
Action Taken:
Director Sassoon presented the item. Discussion ensued.
Dorothia Liebich- She was against the project. There was no need for it. She stated
that she was the block captain of Crestridge Road.
Shawn Gillis- He was against it. He said the issue was the excessive downhill speed
on Crenshaw Blvd. He added that cutting back the hedges on Crenshaw might help
improve visibility.
James Jongkind- He was against it. He suggested taking incremental steps. He
suggested cutting back the hedges on Crenshaw.
John Smythe- He was against it. There was no need for signs.
Further discussion ensued and several possible motions were considered. Member
Tye moved for the installation of two 35 mph advisory speed limit signs on the right
side of the street, heading northbound on Crenshaw Boulevard, south of Crestridge
Road. Member Hamill seconded it.
Motion approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
Chair Liu amended the above motion to include one sign located 125 feet in advance
of the beginning of curb and one at the beginning of curb. Member Tye seconded it.
Motion approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
Member Tye moved for the installation of two 35 mph advisory speed limits signs on
the left side of the street, heading northbound on Crenshaw Boulevard, south of
Crestridge Road, one sign located 125 feet in advance of the beginning of curb and
two signs at the beginning of curb. Member Guerin seconded it.
Motion approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
Director Sassoon affirmed that the total of advisory speed limits signs will be four (4).
He added that trimming hedges in the public right of way would be easy, but if the
hedge/trees are located on private property, it will be difficult.
E-3
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
September 23, 2019
Page 4 of 6
Chair Liu request staff to investigate the feasibility of the trimming foliage on the
eastside of Crenshaw Boulevard, south of Crestridge Road.
Motion approved (by a show of hands): Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
3.Review Speed Study of PVDW from Hawthorne Boulevard to Western City
Border with the City of Palos Verdes Estates- Review consultant report and
recommendation, and discuss.
Action Taken:
Director Sassoon presented the item.
Lawrence Liang- He commented on the speeding cars and the difficulty crossing the
median to go to the other side of PVDW . He requested to move the 45 mph speed
limit sign further away from the PVE City border, and move it close to Calle Entradero,
so cars do not speed up immediately when entering RPV.
Julie Hamill- Member Hamill recused herself due to her living in proximity to the
location and spoke as a resident, not as a committee member. She said the speed in
that area is excessive.
Discussion ensued. Director Sassoon commented that he can deploy speed radar
trailer and asked Member Hamill to send a photo of where she thought the speed
radar trailer placement would be beneficial.
Chair Liu moved that the speed survey study of Hawthorne Boulevard to Western
City Border with the City of Palos Verdes Estates was received and reviewed by the
TSC. Member Tye seconded the motion.
Motion approved: Ayes 3, Nays 0, Absent 1, Abstain 1 (Hamill)
4.Palos Verdes Drive West (PVDW) at Berry Hill Drive Uncontrolled Pedestrian
Crossing- Review consultant report and discuss.
Action Taken:
There was one item of Late Correspondence. Director Sassoon presented this item.
Jim Morrison- He commented on the speed of cars, that there was a speed trap
entering PVE, and requested to move the 35 mph sign closer to Calle Entradero to
help slow the traffic entering PVE earlier.
Lawrence Liang- He requested to move the 45 mph sign closer to Calle Entradero to
help slow down the rapid acceleration entering RPV from PVE. As an alternative,
have a cross walk with a button similar to PVE’s located by the water fountain.
Ilya-Lie Nielsen- She provided the late correspondence. She commented that the
speeding cars are a concern and suggested moving the 35 mph sign closer to Calle
Entradero to allow the speed limit to match the speed of PVE.
Julie Hamill- Member Hamill recused herself due to her living in proximity to the
location and spoke as a resident, not as a committee member. She commented that
E-4
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
September 23, 2019
Page 5 of 6
due to the speeding cars, it is unsafe to cross PVDW especially for the many seniors
living nearby.
Discussion ensued. Chair Liu moved that TSC recommends a controlled crosswalk
on PVDW consistent with Attachment A of the Willdan Report (Alternative referred to
as Exhibit A). Member Tye seconded the motion. Member Hamill recused herself.
Motion approved: Ayes 2, Nays 1 (Guerin), Absent 1, Abstain 1 (Hamill)
Chair Liu modified the motion above. He moved that TSC recommends design of a
controlled crosswalk on PVDW consistent with Attachment A of the Willdan Report
(Alternative identified in the report as Exhibit A). Member Tye seconded the motion.
Motion approved: Ayes 2, Nays 1 (Guerin), Absent 1, Abstain 1 (Hamill)
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS (II)
II.1. Update Re: PVDE Widening Project
II.2. Update Re: Via Rivera / Crenshaw Boulevard [there was a minor typo. It was
corrected to properly reflect Via Rivera/ Hawthorne Boulevard]
II.3. Update Re: Ocean Crest Drive Loading Zone
II.4. Update Re: Bronco Drive (Curb Painting)
Informational Item 1. Chair Liu mentioned receiving one item of Late Correspondence by
Madeline Ryan. Director Sassoon also distributed a map of the area. He said the
consultant would submit a report next month. He added that he suggests having a town
hall meeting with the neighborhood to exchange ideas, and then return to TSC. He
commented that Community Development (CDD) has a consultant working on the Trail
Network Plan.
Informational Item 2. The title of this item was corrected to be “Via Rivera / Hawthorne
Boulevard”. Director Sassoon provided an update.
Informational Item 3. Director Sassoon reported that the work is completed.
Informational Item 4. Director Sassoon reported that the work is completed.
COMMITTEE MEMBER ORAL REPORTS
Chair Liu reported that Member Tye and Hamill attended the Brown Act meeting. Member
Tye reported that the meeting was beneficial and included best practices on electronic
phishing, use of City email accounts, and Brown Act “do’s and don’ts”. Member Hamill
concurred.
E-5
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
September 23, 2019
Page 6 of 6
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Members initially considered an alternative meeting dates. Member Hamill moved to
adjourn the meeting to November 25, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. and Member Tye seconded it.
The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Motion Approved: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Absent 1
E-6
1 | Page
TO: Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works
FROM: Vanessa Munoz, PE, TE, PTOE - Traffic Engineer
DATE: January 28, 2020
SUBJECT: Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road – Various Options Analysis
Willdan Engineering prepared an All-Way Stop Warrant Analysis on December 20, 2018 for the
intersection of Crestridge Road and Middlecrest Road, per the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Stop
Warrant Guidelines and recommended the installation of an All-Way Stop at the subject location.
The recommendation was presented to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) at the April 22, 2019
meeting. We had residents in attendance with some in favor installation of the All-Way Stop and
majority against it. The TSC Committee requested staff come up with other possible traffic control
devices such as a Yield sign as an alternative to the All-Way stop. A brief memorandum was
prepared on this topic on August 29, 2019. Furthermore, after the yield alternative was reviewed
and presented, the TSC Committee requested staff review alternative to the all-way stop sign and
provide recommendations.
There are a few items to discuss prior to reviewing the alternatives that are unique to this T
intersection. The 24-hour approach counts collected on October 10, 2018 clearly shows
Crestridge Road has equal volumes for the south and west approaches and Middlecrest road has
the lowest vehicle volumes. This is not a typical traffic pattern for T intersections which makes this
intersection unique.
Crestridge Road Approach Volumes
South Approach 490
West Approach 499
Middlecrest Road Approach Volumes
North Approach 197
It is also important to remember the reason behind the all way stop justification; the warrant was
met due to the lack of sight distance at the intersection for all approaches.
F-1
2 | Page
The sight distance for Crestridge Road west
approach should meet the minimum distance of
305 feet and 250 feet subsequently for the right
and left turn movements. Presently we only have
115 feet and 125 feet for those approaches. Due
to the vertical and horizontal curvature of the
roads, the sight distance is not met. From field
observations performed on January 18, 2020, I
noted the shrubs at the southwest corner
property of 28602 Crestridge Road had been
trimmed, however the shrubs at the corner
are not the reason for the line of sight
obstruction but instead the geometrics of the
roads themselves. The exhibit to the left depicts
the available sight distance triangle in green for
all directions. Vehicles approaching the
intersection must be inside the sight triangle to be
seen by all three of the approaches to avoid
conflicting movements.
The free flow traffic that exists today at the
intersection creates 6 potential conflict points due
to right of way confusion. The image to the right
identifies the 6 conflict points.
F-2
3 | Page
This memorandum will review Four (4) Alternatives for the intersection of Crestridge Road and
Middlecrest Road. The alternatives being evaluated are the following:
Alternative 1 – Install a Stop Sign on Crestridge Road West Approach
Alternative 2 – Installing a Stop Sign on Middlecrest Road
Alternative 3 – Installing Stop Signs on the Middlecrest Road and Crestridge Road South
Apprach
Alternative 4 – All Way Stop at the Intersection
Alternative 1 – Installing a Stop Sign on Crestridge Road West Approach
This alternative would install a stop sign on
the west approach of Crestridge Road. The
west approach of Crestridge Road has 490
vehicles stopping at the intersection.
Engineering practices do not stop the
direction that has the largest number of
vehicles. Per the California Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section
2B.04.08 if installing side street stop signs,
“A stop sign should not be installed on the
higher volume roadway”. Crestridge Road
west approach has the 2nd largest vehicle
traffic at the intersection with 490 vehicles,
therefore it should not be stopped. Stopping
traffic in that direction does not eliminate the
sight distance limitation for both Crestridge
Road south approach and Middlecrest
Road. Presently both approaches have a
clear line of sight of the intersection of 87
feet to the right and 110 feet to the left prior
to reaching the intersection when at a
minimum they require 305 feet to the right
and 250 feet to the left. Furthermore, the
conflicting left turns for Crestridge Road
south approach and the right turns for
Middlecrest Road will remain. Although this
alternative eliminates the conflicting
movements for the west approach of
Crestridge Road it does not remove all
conflicting movements or eliminate line of
F-3
4 | Page
sight conflicts.
Alternative 2 – Installing a Stop Sign on Middlecrest Road
This alternative would install a stop sign
on Middlecrest Road. The approach of
Middlecrest Road is considered the minor
street for the intersection of Crestridge
Road and Middlecrest Road. The volume
of 197 is low in comparison to the other
two approaches whose volume averages
495 vehicles per day. Per the California
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Section 2B.04.08 if installing side street
stop signs, “A stop sign should not be
installed on the higher volume roadway”.
A stop sign installation on Middlecrest
Road although appropriate due to being
the minor street would create right of way
confusion as most drivers would expect
the south approach of Crestridge Road to
also have to stop. Furthermore, it would
not eliminate the sight distance limitations
for the south and west approaches of
Crestridge Road who currently have 90
feet of line of sight prior to reaching the
intersection and require at a minimum
305 feet. Furthermore, the conflicting
movements for the left turns for both
Crestridge Road south approach and
Crestridge west approach will remain.
Although this alternative eliminates the
conflicting movements for Middlecrest
Road it does not remove all conflicting
movements or eliminate line of sight
conflicts.
F-4
5 | Page
Alternative 3– Installing Stop Signs on Middlecrest Rd and Crestridge Road South
Approach
This alternative would install a stop sign on
Middlecrest Road and the south approach of
Crestridge Road. The south approach of
Crestridge Road has 499 vehicles stopping at
the intersection. Although this alternative
eliminates conflicting movements and line of
sight conflicts, it creates a scenario for
Crestridge Road south approach where
vehicles will perform a rolling stop or won’t stop
at all due to opposing approach traffic on
Middlecrest Road being low (197 vehicles).
The difference in volumes (almost 2.5 times
larger) would generally have drivers not
stopping at the intersection at the same time
and would encourage drivers on the Crestridge Road south approach to violate the stop sign by
performing a rolling stop or running the stop sign all together. The lack of compliance with the
stop sign would create an unsafe condition.
Alternative 4 – Installing All Way Stop at the Intersection
This alternative would install an all way stop at
the intersection, doing so would designate right
of way to all approaches and eliminate
conflicting movements and line of sight
conflicts. Furthermore, the all way stop would
have greater compliance since two out of the
three approaches have an equal number of
vehicles, therefore at least two out of the three
approaches would need to stop to designed
right of way.
F-5
6 | Page
Based on review of field conditions, data previously collected and engineering judgement, out of
the four alternatives discussed, I recommend alternative 4, the installation of an all way stop at the
intersection. This alternative is the only alternative that eliminates all conflicting movements and
provides adequate line of sight, furthermore this alternative clearly assigns right of way without
creating confusion, therefore alternative 4 is the safest and best solution. Alternatives 1 thru 3
are not recommended as they are not the safest solution. These alternatives do not eliminate line
of sight conflicts or conflicting movements and some of those alternatives increase the right of way
confusion.
F-6